Canadians- Who are you gonna vote for in federal election?

As for me, as much as I want to vote NDP, I know that in my ultra conservative riding voting liberal will have the best chance of taking the riding.

edit: ah I hit enter too soon, just tell me lol

I'll be 18 after the election, so I don't care. I wonder if I'll have more of an opinion for the next one....

when's the voting day? ill vote conservative

when's the voting day? ill vote conservative

HaloReachGOTY

Liberal after I heard about all those bad things the Conservatives commited in tthe last year in parliament.

Over the course of the next few weeks I'll be reading the election platforms of each of the parties, and make my decision based on those. Won't decide who I'm voting for until I'm adequately informed.

Cant vote yet though, but I would vote for conservatives

Lets see-

Stephen Harper: blah blah blah, im a family man. look at me play piano, F*** Ignatieff
Ignatieff: Im smart, YAY
Layton: Vote me, no more waiting rooms in coffee shops, BLAH
Duceppe: I have no idea, i cant understand him
Elizabeth May: Yipee I ride the train

I will not be voting

Liberals. I still find it hilarious that people think the Conservatives are "fiscally responsible" and "helping the economy". Under Conservative leadership we have run the worst deficit in Canadian history while the "tax and spend" Liberals that were in power before them were running a surplus. On top of that, they want to deregulate our banking system (which is the main reason we got through the financial crisis so well) and give more tax cuts to corporations at the expense of our declining medical system and social systems. So yeah, I'm voting Liberal because they stand for what I believe in and they haven't screwed up our country as bad as the Conservatives. I wouldn't vote for the NDP, Bloc or Greens because they don't have a chance of beating the Conservatives.

You guys have elections?

Ilovegames1992

Not sure, I really don't think it matters which government is in power at the moment. However, I'm definitely going to vote, simply because of my ageblack_tempest

This is why i agree with Plato and dont believe in voting.

Bloc Quebecois! fidosim

[QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]

You guys have elections?

Nibroc420

It hasn't melted yet? AHA! Global warming is a scam! :P

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]

You guys have elections?

Former_Slacker

It hasn't melted yet? AHA! Global warming is a scam! :P

Man why are you asking me I can't vote yetanihimz

[QUOTE="Former_Slacker"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] Yeah, at the national igloo.Nibroc420

It hasn't melted yet? AHA! Global warming is a scam! :P

Not really, there is pretty wide spread consensus among climatologists over climate change's occurance and humanity's involvement in it.
Link: http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-19/world/eco.globalwarmingsurvey_1_global-warming-climate-science-human-activity?_s=PM:WORLD

All things Green.

To all those who say their vote does not matter, for shame. You will not have the right to complain about anything you dislike about our government.

How difficult is it really. 10 minutes of your life. Affect the change you want to see. /rant

i've had enough with harper, so its the libs weezyfb

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="Former_Slacker"]

It hasn't melted yet? AHA! Global warming is a scam! :P

Former_Slacker

Not really, there is pretty wide spread consensus among climatologists over climate change's occurance and humanity's involvement in it.
Link: http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-19/world/eco.globalwarmingsurvey_1_global-warming-climate-science-human-activity?_s=PM:WORLD

[QUOTE="Former_Slacker"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] actually you'd be surprised at the amount of scientists who claim it is a scam :P but i dont want to go OT, in an OT forum :PNibroc420

Not really, there is pretty wide spread consensus among climatologists over climate change's occurance and humanity's involvement in it.
Link: http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-19/world/eco.globalwarmingsurvey_1_global-warming-climate-science-human-activity?_s=PM:WORLD

Right, have any proof of that?

[QUOTE="weezyfb"]i've had enough with harper, so its the libs Nibroc420

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="weezyfb"]i've had enough with harper, so its the libs Ace6301

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

[QUOTE="Former_Slacker"]

Not really, there is pretty wide spread consensus among climatologists over climate change's occurance and humanity's involvement in it.
Link: http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-19/world/eco.globalwarmingsurvey_1_global-warming-climate-science-human-activity?_s=PM:WORLD

Former_Slacker

Right, have any proof of that?

A news article.

and a list of scientists who's research conflicts with what the UN in claiming.

[QUOTE="Former_Slacker"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] Anyone who disagreed with the general consensus was fired and their reputations tarnished. If your numbers don't match theirs you're suddenly without a job, doesn't seem like the right scientific method..

Nibroc420

Right, have any proof of that?

A news article.

A political blog is not news. Climate change is not politics, it is science and science is not a democracy.

and a list of scientists who's research conflicts with what the UN in claiming.

1. For the purposes of this list, qualification as a scientist is reached by publication of at least one peer-reviewed article in their lifetime in a broadly construed area of "natural sciences". The article need not have been written in recent years nor be in a field relevant to climate.
2. Attributable statements of disagreement in any venue in the individual's own words (not merely inclusion on petitions, surveys, or lists).

It defines a "scientist" as anyone who has had work published under peer-review from any of the "natural sciences." Essentially anyone who has had any article published under peer review, not necessarily an article about climate change at that. Furthermore, unless they are climatologists their opinions matter as much as a person off of the street and I've already shown you what the majority of climatologists think about this matter.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

[QUOTE="Former_Slacker"]

Right, have any proof of that?

Former_Slacker

A news article.

A political blog is not news. Climate change is not politics, it is science and science is not a democracy.

and a list of scientists who's research conflicts with what the UN in claiming.

1. For the purposes of this list, qualification as a scientist is reached by publication of at least one peer-reviewed article in their lifetime in a broadly construed area of "natural sciences". The article need not have been written in recent years nor be in a field relevant to climate.
2. Attributable statements of disagreement in any venue in the individual's own words (not merely inclusion on petitions, surveys, or lists).

It defines a "scientist" as anyone who has had work published under peer-review from any of the "natural sciences." Essentially anyone who has had any article published under peer review, not necessarily an article about climate change at that. Furthermore, unless they are climatologists their opinions matter as much as a person off of the street and I've already shown you what the majority of climatologists think about this matter.

[QUOTE="Former_Slacker"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

A news article.

A political blog is not news. Climate change is not politics, it is science and science is not a democracy.

and a list of scientists who's research conflicts with what the UN in claiming.

1. For the purposes of this list, qualification as a scientist is reached by publication of at least one peer-reviewed article in their lifetime in a broadly construed area of "natural sciences". The article need not have been written in recent years nor be in a field relevant to climate.
2. Attributable statements of disagreement in any venue in the individual's own words (not merely inclusion on petitions, surveys, or lists).

It defines a "scientist" as anyone who has had work published under peer-review from any of the "natural sciences." Essentially anyone who has had any article published under peer review, not necessarily an article about climate change at that. Furthermore, unless they are climatologists their opinions matter as much as a person off of the street and I've already shown you what the majority of climatologists think about this matter.

Nibroc420

...

[QUOTE="Former_Slacker"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

A news article.

A political blog is not news. Climate change is not politics, it is science and science is not a democracy.

and a list of scientists who's research conflicts with what the UN in claiming.

1. For the purposes of this list, qualification as a scientist is reached by publication of at least one peer-reviewed article in their lifetime in a broadly construed area of "natural sciences". The article need not have been written in recent years nor be in a field relevant to climate.
2. Attributable statements of disagreement in any venue in the individual's own words (not merely inclusion on petitions, surveys, or lists).

It defines a "scientist" as anyone who has had work published under peer-review from any of the "natural sciences." Essentially anyone who has had any article published under peer review, not necessarily an article about climate change at that. Furthermore, unless they are climatologists their opinions matter as much as a person off of the street and I've already shown you what the majority of climatologists think about this matter.

Nibroc420

[QUOTE="Former_Slacker"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

A news article.

A political blog is not news. Climate change is not politics, it is science and science is not a democracy.

and a list of scientists who's research conflicts with what the UN in claiming.

1. For the purposes of this list, qualification as a scientist is reached by publication of at least one peer-reviewed article in their lifetime in a broadly construed area of "natural sciences". The article need not have been written in recent years nor be in a field relevant to climate.
2. Attributable statements of disagreement in any venue in the individual's own words (not merely inclusion on petitions, surveys, or lists).

It defines a "scientist" as anyone who has had work published under peer-review from any of the "natural sciences." Essentially anyone who has had any article published under peer review, not necessarily an article about climate change at that. Furthermore, unless they are climatologists their opinions matter as much as a person off of the street and I've already shown you what the majority of climatologists think about this matter.

Nibroc420